If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

On 22/02/17 14:07, Offramp wrote:
That was a good idea. I have three laptops and I and doing a
blundercheck with Stockfish 8 at 15 seconds per move.

OK; if games last 30 moves, 60 ply, that's 15 minutes
per game, or, with three invocations of Stockfish, 12 games per
hour on average, ...
Setting that up allowed me to see exactly how many games there were
in this interesting collection.
It is much more than I thought: 2,518,172,389.

..., totalling ~210,000,000 hours, ~9,000,000 days, call
it 25,000 years. I hope the collection is *very* interesting ...!
You need to save a factor of 1t least 10,000 somewhere. If you buy
another 297 laptops, find another nine numpties with similar set-ups,
and allow Stockfish only 1.5s/m, you're about there.

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 12:31:41 PM UTC-5, Andy Walker wrote:
On 22/02/17 14:07, Offramp wrote:
That was a good idea. I have three laptops and I and doing a
blundercheck with Stockfish 8 at 15 seconds per move.

OK; if games last 30 moves, 60 ply, that's 15 minutes
per game, or, with three invocations of Stockfish, 12 games per
hour on average, ...
Setting that up allowed me to see exactly how many games there were
in this interesting collection.
It is much more than I thought: 2,518,172,389.

..., totalling ~210,000,000 hours, ~9,000,000 days, call
it 25,000 years. I hope the collection is *very* interesting ...!
You need to save a factor of 1t least 10,000 somewhere. If you buy
another 297 laptops, find another nine numpties with similar set-ups,
and allow Stockfish only 1.5s/m, you're about there.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

Quantum computers will solve this in seconds. Please do keep up with the literature, even when retired...

On 22/02/17 17:41, raylopez99 wrote:
..., totalling ~210,000,000 hours, ~9,000,000 days, call
it 25,000 years. I hope the collection is *very* interesting ...!
You need to save a factor of at least 10,000 somewhere. If you buy
another 297 laptops, find another nine numpties with similar set-ups,
and allow Stockfish only 1.5s/m, you're about there.
Quantum computers will solve this in seconds.

Perhaps they will, though they're a tad short of that sort of
power today and for the foreseeable future. I'd guess it will be more
than 2.5 years before Offramp, or you, can afford a quantum computer
to replace his current three laptops, let alone to do substantially
better at analysing chess positions.

By contrast, crowd-funding or otherwise acquiring ~10,000x
Offramp's current computing power is practicable, though unlikely,
even today. After all, that is roughly how the 2 billion games
were created in the first place.
Please do keep up with
the literature, even when retired...

Perhaps you should read the scientific literature rather than
tabloid hype?

On Wednesday, 22 February 2017 17:39:45 UTC, raylopez99 wrote:
On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 9:07:35 AM UTC-5, Offramp wrote:
That was a good idea. I have three laptops and I and doing a blundercheck with Stockfish 8 at 15 seconds per move.

Setting that up allowed me to see exactly how many games there were in this interesting collection.

It is much more than I thought: 2,518,172,389. That shows how much FICS usage has increased in recent years.

Great! I'll check back with you Offramp in 30 years and see how you're doing...

You are right; it is going to take about 30 years at this rate. I have found three more laptops (that reduces it to 15 years), and I have reduced the tome from 15 seconds /move to 1.5 (as someone suggested), so that would make just 18 months! That isn't too long. If the programme finds some duplicates then I could cut the time down even further.

On 22/02/17 21:17, Offramp wrote:
If the programme finds some duplicates then I could cut the time down
even further.

If you sort the games, then you need to analyse each game only
from the point where it deviates from its predecessor. Given how many
will start with one of the standard opening lines, I'd guess that the
majority of games will first deviate more than 20 ply in, saving perhaps
1/3 of the analysis.

Bucket sort would be particularly suitable for this problem,
esp as you can be analysing moves within the bucket while continuing
the sort.

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 3:02:13 PM UTC-5, Andy Walker wrote:
On 22/02/17 17:41, raylopez99 wrote:
..., totalling ~210,000,000 hours, ~9,000,000 days, call
it 25,000 years. I hope the collection is *very* interesting ...!
You need to save a factor of at least 10,000 somewhere. If you buy
another 297 laptops, find another nine numpties with similar set-ups,
and allow Stockfish only 1.5s/m, you're about there.
Quantum computers will solve this in seconds.

Perhaps they will, though they're a tad short of that sort of
power today and for the foreseeable future. I'd guess it will be more
than 2.5 years before Offramp, or you, can afford a quantum computer
to replace his current three laptops, let alone to do substantially
better at analysing chess positions.

By contrast, crowd-funding or otherwise acquiring ~10,000x
Offramp's current computing power is practicable, though unlikely,
even today. After all, that is roughly how the 2 billion games
were created in the first place.
Please do keep up with
the literature, even when retired...

Perhaps you should read the scientific literature rather than
tabloid hype?

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

Oh, you got me professor... So I guess Offramp can hire, on Amazon.com, X thousands of computers and analyze the games that way? I guess so...

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 12:41:55 PM UTC-5, raylopez99 wrote:
On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 12:31:41 PM UTC-5, Andy Walker wrote:
On 22/02/17 14:07, Offramp wrote:
That was a good idea. I have three laptops and I and doing a
blundercheck with Stockfish 8 at 15 seconds per move.

OK; if games last 30 moves, 60 ply, that's 15 minutes
per game, or, with three invocations of Stockfish, 12 games per
hour on average, ...
Setting that up allowed me to see exactly how many games there were
in this interesting collection.
It is much more than I thought: 2,518,172,389.

..., totalling ~210,000,000 hours, ~9,000,000 days, call
it 25,000 years. I hope the collection is *very* interesting ...!
You need to save a factor of 1t least 10,000 somewhere. If you buy
another 297 laptops, find another nine numpties with similar set-ups,
and allow Stockfish only 1.5s/m, you're about there.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

Quantum computers will solve this in seconds. Please do keep up with the literature, even when retired...

RL

This week's Economist has a special section on how quantum computers have gone mainstream. Chess tree to be solved soon, to xyz moves, depending on what kind of quantum computer you have (the more qubits you have--which is hardware related--the more moves you can search; I can see in the future the entire chess tree to say 1000 moves deep being completed exhaustively searched with a top-of-the-line quantum computer).

Science fiction says Andy Walker, but the poor chap, being retired and retarded, doesn't keep up with the literature!

On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 6:32:52 PM UTC-4, raylopez99 wrote:
On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 12:41:55 PM UTC-5, raylopez99 wrote:
On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 12:31:41 PM UTC-5, Andy Walker wrote:
On 22/02/17 14:07, Offramp wrote:
That was a good idea. I have three laptops and I and doing a
blundercheck with Stockfish 8 at 15 seconds per move.

OK; if games last 30 moves, 60 ply, that's 15 minutes
per game, or, with three invocations of Stockfish, 12 games per
hour on average, ...

Setting that up allowed me to see exactly how many games there were
in this interesting collection.
It is much more than I thought: 2,518,172,389.

..., totalling ~210,000,000 hours, ~9,000,000 days, call
it 25,000 years. I hope the collection is *very* interesting ...!
You need to save a factor of 1t least 10,000 somewhere. If you buy
another 297 laptops, find another nine numpties with similar set-ups,
and allow Stockfish only 1.5s/m, you're about there.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

Quantum computers will solve this in seconds. Please do keep up with the literature, even when retired...

RL

This week's Economist has a special section on how quantum computers have gone mainstream. Chess tree to be solved soon, to xyz moves, depending on what kind of quantum computer you have (the more qubits you have--which is hardware related--the more moves you can search; I can see in the future the entire chess tree to say 1000 moves deep being completed exhaustively searched with a top-of-the-line quantum computer).

Science fiction says Andy Walker, but the poor chap, being retired and retarded, doesn't keep up with the literature!

RL

Now take this to the logical extreme: one quantum computer, model Ace1, can search up to 1000 moves deep. The other quantum computer, improved model Ace2, can search 1001 moves deep. Ace 1 makes an innocent knight move Nh3 to the edge of the board, in an equal position, and Ace2 announces mate in 1001! The next move, after being made by Ace2, results in Ace1 resigning since it now sees, within its 1000 move event horizon, that it is lost. The human spectators would of course not have a clue the game was lost until say 995 moves were played, then they would see the mate in five.